4 ms·
> Jailing the shoplifter doesn't do one iota of good when it's an organized crime ring Not true. First, attaching penalties to the theft will reduce the pool o
by anon373839 3y ago
> Jailing the shoplifter doesn't do one iota of good when it's an organized crime ring
Not true. First, attaching penalties to the theft will reduce the pool of willing thieves. Second, under threat of prosecution, the thieves can turn on their handlers and cooperate with investigators. But when the law states that there are no consequences for theft, there is also no incentive to do this.
- bsder 3y ago> Not true. First, attaching penalties to the theft will reduce the pool of willing thieves. You say this, but Prohibition and the Drug War both provide direct counter-evidence to that statement. There is always someone desperate enough to be on the bottom rungs of criminal organizations. You reduce organized crime by taking out the leaders.
- citrin_ru 3y agoProhibition driven alcohol prices up and risk of prosecution was compensated by high profit. For fenced goods there is an upper bound - the price in supermarket / online.
- t0suj4 3y agoOrganized crime during prohibition was there because there was demand and someone willing to risk it for money. Demand for cheaper (stolen) goods was always there and the risk was significantly lowered so a lot of thieves took that opportunity to make some money. Whether someone chooses the path of crime out of desperation depends on one's culture. If the crime organization has an hierarchy then it might be easier to take out the leaders.
- prepend 3y ago> You reduce organized crime by taking out the leaders. You take out the leaders by arresting the weakest link and working up. You may enjoy watching The Wire. Aside from being maybe the best tv show ever, they go deeply how to take out organized crime (and the societal issues driving crime).
- reverius42 3y ago> when the law states that there are no consequences for theft What law, in what jurisdiction, states this?
- prepend 3y agoHere’s an article from San Francisco [0]. > Under current state law, shoplifting merchandise valued under $950 is considered a misdemeanor and often not investigated. The law classifies it as a misdemeanor. Police aren’t investigating and prosecutors aren’t prosecuting. So it’s an issue of enforcing law vs technically having a law. Cities can individually choose to change this and deter shoplifting by prosecuting this as misdemeanors can still have up to a year in jail. [0] https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/shoplifting-san-francisco/3209672/ https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/shoplifting-san-fr...
- reverius42 3y agoIt's hard to choose to prosecute misdemeanors when you already have a backlog of felonies, the jails and prisons are already full, etc. This is not a unique situation in San Francisco, though it is often claimed that the level of theft there is unique. And this isn't exactly the same thing as the law saying there are no consequences, which is what the parent poster was claiming.
- notadev 3y agoThey weren’t previously misdemeanors, which is part of the problem. They made a felony on par with jaywalking.
- superb_dev 3y ago> First, attaching penalties to the theft will reduce the pool of willing thieves. Not when the other option is starving.
- aydyn 3y agoNobody is starving in Seattle.
- anon373839 3y agoSo which option are you taking: starving or theft?
- mensetmanusman 3y agoStarving for Gucci!
- prepend 3y agoYou think people robbing these targets (and Apple stores and Nordstrom, etc) are starving? Has the rate of starving skyrocketed in the past few years. I want to understand your logic as it seems strange to think that starvation has anything to do with these thefts at all.